PENDALA VIVEKANANDA BABU Vs. PENDALA VENKATA MURALI KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Court ordered Notice Before Admission on 7.7.2006. Sri M.Venkata Narayana entered appearance on behalf of 1st respondent. The counsel for petitioner was permitted to take out personal notice to the counsel appearing for 2nd respondent in the Court below and also to 2nd respondent and file proof of service. On 14.6.2007 a Memo had been filed stating that immediately notice was taken and the 2nd respondent received the same on 17.7.2006 and acknowledgement also had been enclosed.

(2.) At the request of the counsel on record, the Civil Revision Petition itself is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

(3.) Sri M.Ravindra Nath Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had taken this Court through the facts of the case and also observations recorded by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali at paragraphs 7 and 8 and would contend that having observed that the Court Amin exceeded his powers, instead of rectifying the same dismissing the application cannot sustained. The counsel also would maintain that even otherwise if Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure, hereinafter, for the purpose of convenience, would be referred to as Code, to be held to be not applicable in strict senso, the application is definitely maintainable under Section 151 of the Code. The counsel also further would maintain that the Court Amin, as Officer of the Court, is expected to just carry on the directions of the Court and if any mistake had been committed by the said Officer of the Court and the same was brought to the notice of the Court, it is the bounden duty of the Court to rectify such illegality committed by the Court Amin. The counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in CHENI CHENCHAIAH vs. SHAIK ALI SAHEB AND OTHERS.